Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debuting in 2015, Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Broadway musical Hamilton was an instant success because of its unique interpretation of American history. The historical alteration that has made Hamilton so popular is the casting of America’s founding fathers all as men of color. All actors, with the exception of two, are people of colour, which makes Hamilton a welcome display of diversity on the Broadway stage. This modern casting choice has caught the attention of many critics, raising questions concerning the nature of artistic works versus historical works. This racially diverse casting choice is not accidental, and yet the same attention to diversity is not given to the play’s characters and plot. The visual diversity on stage conceals the fact that Hamilton is another example of the glorification of white men that simultaneously erases the presence and struggles of people of colour throughout American history. While the hip hop culture that structures the musical may appear to engage with a more diverse America, Hamilton is still using a concept of colored culture that is a form of reactionary masculinity to toxic Euro-American gender standards; the modern rap masculinity on stage is the same toxic masculinity as the oppressive white masculinity in history. The racially diverse cast and music that appear forward-thinking only conceal that Hamilton is yet another celebration of exclusively white American history that promotes the Euro-American construct of domineering masculinity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.138 | 0.079 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".